108 MR. W. FAIRBAIRN ON THE PROPERTIES OF 
TABLE If. Results reduced to bars 1" square. | Distance 
between the supports 2’ 3”. 
Strength 
Break- Power of compared 
ing Ultimate jresisting __ with 
weight |deflection| impact Blenarvon 
(0) (d) (bxd) | =1000 
Experiment I. bar D. pure Blaenarvon No. 3.......... 1131 | 0°75 | 848-2 | 1000 
Do. II. ,, C.Blaenaryon No.8 andnickel,,.| 875 | 058 |507°5 | 773 
Do. III. ,, B. pure cast iron No.1............ 861 | 0:47 |404°7 | 761 
Do. IV. ,, A.castiron No. 1and nickel.......| 637 | 0434 | 2764 | 563 
Do. YV.,, E.Pontypoolironand purenickel| 798 | 0°366 | 292°1 | 705 
052 |465°7 | 760 
Rabeatiemas dee 860 
From the above it is evident that an admixture of 
nickel in the proportion of 24 per cent does not increase 
but diminish the tenacity of cast iron. To what extent 
it might be improved by augmenting or lessening the 
proportion of nickel, a more extended series of experi- 
ments alone can determine. Mixtures of the two metals 
in the proportion used in the above experiments are de- 
cidedly inferior to the pure metal in their power of resist- 
ance to a transverse strain and to impact. In the first 
and second experiments on Blaenarvon iron there is a 
loss of nearly one-fifth the strength; or the strength of 
the pure metal is to that of the mixture as 1000: 773. 
And in Experiments III. and IV. with a more fluid iron 
there is about the same loss, the relative strengths being 
as 761:563; or as 1000: 740. From these facts it is 
evident that nickel in the proportion of 24 per cent seri- 
ously injures the strength of cast iron, and moreover 
has injurious effects on its power of resisting impact, as 
the columns in the above table indicating those properties 
clearly show. 
It is difficult to account for the serious deterioration 
and loss of strength which the above experiments indicate. 
It may probably arise from the improper treatment of the 
nickel ore during its calcination and subsequent reduction 
